Sklansky in Big Game-Mental Maturabtion

[Sqred]

As a way to demonstrate how fluid and difficult to quantify the edges are in a large scale mixed game format, I pose the following scenario.


The usual suspects in the big game decide to switch it to Stud HiLo with no qualifier ONLY at stakes of 4/8K. Against an average lineup for that game, considering thier current knowledge of the game, emotional control, and the like, what would David S. think his expectation would be? I expect huge, like over a big bet an hour. Of course it would grow smaller over time as they all focused and got better, but I think in the short term after the change I think David's edge would be enormous.

The reason I ask is to demonstrate how hard it is to quantify an individual's expectation when you reach this level and play so many different games. That doesn't even take into account what various individuals are going through in theeir personal lives and with other forms of gambling, which in this group are quite substantial.

What do you think David? Would it be a dream come true? Or am I all wet and underestimating just how good these guys are as a group in all the games? Of course I picked a game that can be very dangerous for action players, has reputation for being extremely good for solid cerebral types, and is not played very much anymore. And of course a game in which your reputation is extremely strong. Like I said in the header, mental masturbation.

[phish]

I think you're all wet. The reason those games were so good about 17 years ago or so was there were some players making really stupid mistakes (like playing high hands). I don't think there is a single regular in the big game who's that stupid. And if you have no one making the big mistakes, the small mathematical mistakes those guys may make are probably mostly made up for by other advantages they may have over DS (like heart and guts, psychology, hand-reading).

[reverend king]

Usually the 4000 8000 is a mixed game.
Im not even sure if limit hold'em is usually part of the rotation.
I think they usually play some 1000 - 2000 NL.
Just because alot of those guys play loose aggressive in NL tourneys does not mean they play LAG in every game.

I beleive Sklansky's take on the big game is every player is about even so its not worth the variance.

[augie_]

i doubt he would win too much. although a lot of these guys have probably never played stud hi/lo with no qualifier, it can't be that much different than stud hi/lo with a qualifier.

[tom10167]

It's wayyy different.

Like saying NL isn't that much different than LHE

[Sqred]

Phish,

I'm usually all wet so no debate there. I chose the no qualifier game simply because I think you are dead on about the heart/guts/gamble observation you made. I think those aspects can be a hindrance to someone in this specific game. And I am a big bleiever of the leopard not being able to change his spots theory. This is based on nothing but intuition, but I have a feeling that it is those intangibles that make the guys who really gamble high successful. I just don't think those qualities could make up for the mathematical small mistakes they would make against D.S. Of course, I have no hard evidence to prove any of this. I would be very interested to hear back from D.S. or someone who has a more intimate knowledge of the players in general and specifically how well they play split pot games. that's not a sot at you at all Phish, you very well may be that guy.

I am just kind of interested in just how strong these guys really are. The idea that they are WCP at so many different games (10-12)is just mindblowing to me. I know the work and discipline it takes to be a credible 30/60 LHE player. I mean, does a game like Badugi or whatever it's called just get invented and these guys are staggeringly good at it after 3 months?

That aside, I think my money would be safe if i got to back D.S. in a 4/8 game of HiLo regular at a table that seated Bobby B., Lyle Berman, Chau, Eli E., Daniel, Sean S. etc. It migh be a little different if the lineup was just Chip, Ted, John H., and Todd B.

Whatever, I feel like a high school girl gossiping about Brad Pitt and Angelina. It is kind of fun though.

[Sqred]

I would say Stud/8 is to No Qualifier what Table Tennis is to Ice Hockey.

[phish]

stud hi/lo w/ no qualifier is sort of like tic tac toe. Unless you have some fish making big mistakes, it's hard to get much of an edge. DS won't win much if anything, but he won't lose much either (expectation wise). He might have a small mathematical edge, but those other guys have edges elsewhere.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

[ QUOTE ]
i doubt he would win too much. although a lot of these guys have probably never played stud hi/lo with no qualifier, ...

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I believe that this game is part of the regular rotation, or at least it is often part of the rotation. They all have more than enough experience in it.

[ QUOTE ]
it can't be that much different than stud hi/lo with a qualifier.

[/ QUOTE ]
As others have said, the difference between the two is probably about the same as that between limit holdem and no limit holdem.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[Sponger.]

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky in Big Game-Mental Maturabtion

[/ QUOTE ]

whoa